Telangana High Court
Jangampally Pochaiah, vs The State Of Telangana, Represented By … on 10 January, 2025
1
SK, J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
*****
WRIT PETITION NO.39483 of 2016
Between:
Jangampally Pochaiah and another
...Petitioners
AND
[
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department and others
...Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 10.01.2025
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship : Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION NO.39483 of 2016
Dated 10.01.2025
Between:
Jangampally Pochaiah and another
...Petitioners
and
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Revenue Department and others
....Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Ashok Reddy Kanathala
^ Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : Learned Govt. Pleader for
Revenue.
^ Counsel for Respondents Nos.6 to 10: Sri Srinivas Rao Velivela
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1. 2015 (4) ALD 427
2. (2007) 6 ALD 134 (DB)
3
SK, J
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.39483 of 2016
ORDER:
1. This Writ Petition is filed questioning impugned
orders passed by the respondent No.3 in file
No.L/867/2015 dated 04.10.2016 whereunder the
appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.5 was
allowed and the directed the Tahsildar/Respondent
No.4 to delete the names of petitioners in the
occupation column in pahanies in respect of the lands
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.20 guntas in
Sy.No.307 situated at Inapur Village and an another
extent of Ac.3.14 guntas in Sy.No.124/A situated at
Ramasagar Village of Cheriyal Mandal.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue
and the learned Counsel for the unofficial respondents
and perused the record.
4
SK, J
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would
submit that the unofficial respondent No.5 and one
Banala Sambaiah have jointly purchased agricultural
lands admeasuring to an extent of Ac.6.28 guntas in
Sy.No.124 of Ramasagar Village of Cheriyal Revenue
Mandal under a registered sale deed No.841/1986
dated 24.08.1986 and another extent of Ac.2.20
guntas in Sy.No.307 of Inapur Village of Cheriyal
Mandal (hereinafter referred to ‘as subject lands’) and
their names were also mutated in the revenue records
and allotted sub-division Nos.124/A and 124/B in
respect of lands of Ramasagar Village. Subsequently,
the said unofficial respondent No.5 and Banala
Sambaiah have jointly sold the subject lands on
17.04.2000 to the petitioners through two simple sale
deeds and also handed over possession to the
petitioners agreeing to execute the sale deeds as and
when demanded by the petitioners. Subsequently,
5
SK, J
when the petitioners approached the unofficial
respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah to execute the
sale deeds in terms of simple sale deeds, the unofficial
respondent No.5 postponed on one pretext or the
other, however, Banala Sambaiah executed sale deed
No.1236/2012 dated 30.03.2012 in respect of lands in
Sy.No.124/B to an extent of Ac.2.27 guntas of
Ramasagar Village and another sale deed
No.1237/2012 dated 30.03.2012 in respect of land
admeasuring to an extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in favour
of the wife of the petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2
and got mutated their names and also obtained
pattadar pass books in respect of the said lands.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would
further submitted that while the matters stood thus,
the unofficial respondent No.5 filed O.S.No.318/2012
on the file of Additonal Junior Civil Judge, Jangaon
against the petitioners for perpetual injunction in
6
SK, J
respect of the subject lands and subsequently
withdrawn. During the pendency of said suit, the
unofficial respondent No.5 filed application before the
Respondent No.3 questioning entries in the revenue
records in the name of the petitioners and to enter his
name in respect of the subject lands, however, without
any jurisdiction, the respondent No.3, passed
impugned orders deleting the names of the petitioners
and ordered to enter the name of the unofficial
respondent No.5.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would
further submit that as per Section 3 (3) of the A.P
Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 (for
short ‘ROR Act‘), if any person effected by an entry in
such Record of Rights may within a period of one year
they have to sought rectification of the entries. The
unofficial respondent No.5 filed appeal before the
respondent No.3 in the year, 2015 seeking correction
7
SK, J
in the occupation column in respect of pahanies for
the year 2012-13. Beyond one year, if the person
wants to seek rectification of entries in ROR the
aggrieved party has to file revision before the District
Collector under Secton 9 of the ROR Act, but the
unofficial respondent No.5 filed application before the
Revenue Divisional Officer and therefore the impugned
order passed by the respondent No.3 is without any
jurisdiction.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would
further submit that after refusing the execution of sale
deeds by the unofficial respondent No.5, the
petitioners filed two suits in O.S.No.268/2015 and
269/2015 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge,
Janagon for specific performance and the said suits
are pending and requested to allow the writ petition by
setting aside the impugned order.
8
SK, J
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners in support
of their contentions, placed reliance on the following
Judgment:
8. During the pendency of Writ Petition the
unofficial respondent No.5 expired and his legal
representatives were brought on record as respondent
Nos.6 to 10.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for unofficial
respondents, basing on the counter filed by the
respondent Nos.6 to 10 would submit that the
respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah have jointly
purchased the subject property through sale deed
No.841/1986 dated 24.08.1986 and as per the recitals
of the said document, 60% share belongs to
respondent No.5 and 40% belong to Banala Sambaiah
1 2015 (4) ALD 427
9
SK, J
and their names were recorded in the revenue record
as per the said ratio. The unofficial respondent No.5
never sold any land to the petitioners as alleged. The
subject property was not partitioned with metes and
bounds and the said Banala Sambaiah is not entitled
to sell the subject property. After obtaining the sale
deeds from Banala Sambaiah, the petitioners have
started interfering with the possession as such the
unofficial respondent No.5 filed suit for injunction
against the petitioners in O.S.No.318 of 2012 on the
file of the Additonal Junior Civil Jduge, Janagon.
After came to know about the illegal mutation of the
names of the petitioners, the respondent No.5 filed
appeal before the respondent No.3. Subsequently, the
suit filed by the respondent No.5 in O.S.No.318 of
2012 was withdrawn and filed a comprehensive suit in
O.S.No.64 of 2019 for the relief of declaration of title,
partition and for possession of his 60% share in the
10
SK, J
subject property. The suit for injunction is nothing to
do with the mutation proceedings and the respondent
No.3 has jurisdiction under Section 5 (5) of ROR Act
for entertaining the appeal. After formation of new
Districts and new Courts all the suits filed by the
petitioners and the unofficial respondent No.5 were
transferred to 2nd Additonal Junior Civil Judge,
Siddipet and they are still pending. There are no merits
and requested to dismiss the writ petition.
10. The learned Counsel for the unofficial respondent
Nos.6 to 10 placed reliance on the following Judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court:
Chinnam Pandurangam Vs. Mandal Revenue
Officer, Serilingampally Mandal 2
11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the
entire material on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the petitioners are challenging the
2 (2007) 6 ALD 134 (DB)
11
SK, J
impugned orders passed by the respondent No.3 in
appeal No.L/867/2015 dated 04.10.2016 in which the
appeal filed by the unofficial respondent No.5 was
allowed by deleting the names of the petitioners in
occupant column in the pahanies in respect of the
subject lands and directed the respondent
No.4/Tahsildar to enter the names in the occupant
column as per Rules.
12. The case of the petitioners is that, the respondent
No.5 and one Banala Sambaiah have jointly purchased
agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.28 guntas in
Sy.No.124 of Ramasagar Village of Cheriyal Mandal
under registered document No.841/1986 dated
24.08.1986 and another extent of Ac.2.20 guntas in
Sy.No.307 of Inapur Village of Cheriyal Revenue
Mandal and they got mutated their names in the
revenue records and allotted sub-division Nos.124/A
and 124/B in respect of lands in Ramsagar Village.
12
SK, J
Thereafter, the respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah
have jointly sold land entire extent of said lands to the
petitioners through simple sale deeds dated
17.04.2000. In spite of several requests made by the
petitioners, the respondent No.5 did not come forward
to execute the regular sale deed, but Banala Sambaiah
had executed two registered sale deed Nos.1236/2012
and 1237/2012 dated 30.03.2012 in respect of an
extent of Ac.2.27 guntas of land in Sy.No.124/B of
Ramasagar Village and extent of Ac.1.00 guntas in
respect of land in Sy.No.307 of Inapur Villages
respectively in favour of the wife of the petitioner No.1
and petitioner No.2.
13. The contention of the petitioners is that, as per
Rule-3 (3) of ROR Act, 1971, if any person affected by
an entry in such record of rights may within a period
of one year they have to sought rectification of the
entry. As the respondent No.5 filed appeal in the year
13
SK, J
2015 for correction of entries in the pahanies for the
year 2012-13, beyond one year, without filing any
condone delay petition, the respondent No.3 allowed
the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 without any
jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.
14. After filing the appeal, the petitioners filed two
suits in O.S.No.268/2015 and 269/2015 on the file of
the Additional Junior Civil Judge, Janagaon against
the respondent No.5 for specific performance in
pursuance to the simple sale deeds dated 17.04.2000
executed by the respondent No.5. Subsequently, the
respondent No.5 had withdrawn the injunction suit
filed by him in O.S.No.318 of 2012 with a liberty to file
comprehensive suit and filed O.S.No.64 of 019 for
declaration of title, partition and possession of his 60%
share in the subject property and all the suits filed by
both parties are still pending before the competent
Civil Court.
14
SK, J
15. There is no dispute with regard to joint
purchase of schedule property by the respondent No.5
and Banala Sambaiah through registered sale deeds
and the percentage of shares of respondent No.5 and
Banala Sambaiah. The petitioners have not filed any
document with regard to partition of the schedule
property between the respondent No.5 and Banala
Sambaiah and without fixing any boundaries, Banala
Sambaiah unilaterally sold the property to the
petitioners through the registered documents.
Admittedly, the names of the petitioners in the
enjoyers column were entered after registered
documents executed by Banala Sambaiah. The
names of the respondent No.5 and Banala Sambaiah
were recorded in the possession column of the
pahanies before 2012-13.
16. As per the Rules and Regulations of ROR Act,
before changing of the names in the pahanies, the
15
SK, J
Tahsildar has to issue notices to the affected parties.
The respondent No.3 in the impugned order
categorically held that the pahanies are being prepared
for every Fasli Year in terms of G.O.Ms.No.265,
Revenue. As per Rule-3 of Telangana Record of Rights
and Pattadar Pass Books Rules, 1989 pahani is not a
record of right and therefore the appeal is maintainable
for rectification of wrong entries in occupant column of
pahani under Section 158 of Telangana Land Revenue
Act. The respondent No.3 further held that the
petitioners have not filed any valid document in
support of their contention and given a categorical
finding that the Tahsildar has not followed the
procedure under Rules and Regulations while
recording the names of the petitioners in occupant
column.
17. As per Section 5(A) of ROR Act, 1971, the
Tahsildar has to follow the procedure for regularization
16
SK, J
of certain alienations or transfer of land and also has
to follow Rule 22 (1) of the Act before recording the
changes in the Pahanies/Adangal by virtue of an
alienation or transfer made or effected otherwise than
by registered document for declaring such alienation
as valid by using notification in Form-IX. In the
instant case the Tahsildar has not followed the said
procedure and not communicated to the respondent
No.5 with regard to changes in the pahanies. When
there is no such commutation to the respondent No.5
with regard to changes in the revenue records, the
question of delay does not arise as per settled law.
Moreover, the suits filed by both the parties are still
pending before the competent civil Courts. Without
following the procedure, the Tahsildar changed the
entries in the pahanies and the same were rightly
rectified by the respondent No.3 in the impugned
order.
17
SK, J
18. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel
for the petitioners in G.Prabhakar Vs. State of
Telangana (surpa 1) not apply to the facts of the
instant case.
19. The Judgment relied on by the learned Counsel
for the respondent No.5 in Chinnam Pandurangam
Vs. Mandal Revenue Officer, Serilingamapally
(supra 1), squarely apply to the facts of the instant
case, wherein this Court held as follows:
“10. The issue deserves to be considered from another
angle. If an application is made for amendment of the
existing entries in the Record of Rights, the person whose
name already exists in such record is entitled to contest the
proposed amendment. He can do so only if a notice regarding
the proposed amendment is given to him by the recording
authority. An order passed against a person whose name
already exist in the Record of Rights without giving him
notice of the proposed amendment and effective opportunity
of hearing is liable to be declared nullity on the ground of
violation of the rule of audi alteram partem, which, as
mentioned above, represent the most important facet of the
rules of natural justice. It need no emphasis that the rules of
natural justice are applicable in all judicial and quasi-
18
SK, J
judicial proceedings. The rule of hearing is also applicable in
purely administrative proceedings and actions where any
public authority passes an order affecting the rights of any
individual. The applicability of the rules of natural justice to
purely administrative actions has been recognized by the
Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei
(AIR 1967 SC 1269) and has been reiterated in various
judgments including those of A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India
(air 1970 sc 150) , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (AIR
19789 SC 597; , S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (AIR 1981 SC
136);, Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India (AIR 1981 SC
818) and Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (AIR
1986 SC 180:
20. In the instant case also the Tahsildar, without
following procedure changed entries in the pahanies
and not communicated the orders to the respondent
No.5. Therefore, the orders passed by the respondent
No.3 does not require any interference by this Court
and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid
of any merits.
21. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as
devoid any merits. However, this order does not
19
SK, J
preclude the petitioners to agitate their rights in the
suits pending before the competent civil court. No
order as to costs.
22. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending in this
writ petition, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date:10.01.2025
trr
Note: LR Copy to be marked
[ad_1]
Source link